[net.legal] Abuse of social contracts.

karl@dartvax.UUCP (Karl Berry.) (02/09/85)

I recently found a strange advertisement in my mailbox, from an outfit
called Boardroom Books. They wanted to sell me The Book of Inside
Information, for a substantial [in their eyes] discount. The advertisement
starts:

WHAT CREDIT CARD COMPANIES DON'T TELL YOU. PAGE 10.

What hospitals don't tell you...
What the IRS doesn't tell you...
What auto mechanics don't tell you...

and so forth. Sounds like Ralph Nader so far. Then, down in the text of the
advertisement: ( a few samples )

How to fight back when health insurance claim is denied. AND WIN. Costs not
listed in contract can be covered if you know the ropes.

Legal ways to take tax deduction for full cost of trip mixing business and
pleasure. How to deduct commuting expenses, country club membership, medical
bills paid for non-dependent. And more.

Quit your job, take your accrued pension tax-free, and use it to start your
own business. Legal at any age.

You miss your April 15 deadline and on't get around filing until mid-August.
NO IRS penalty. Lots of taxpayers just like you are quietly getting away
with it.

Alongside such items as:

How auto repair shops pa their bills. Inside strategy for getting honest
total.

Homeowner mistake permits fire insurance company to give you 20% less
protection than you're paying for.

How to check a doctor's credentials, understand medical jargon on a patients
hospital chart, cut through hospital red tape, and get couteous treatment
from floor staff.

   To me, the first set of things are `wrong'. I am not a lover of our
government [who is?] but by cheating, legally or not, on taxes, insurance,
or whatever, hurts the rest of the people at the same time it helps you. 
( The same dilemma as that of the Commons... ) The second set of things, on
the other hand, are things which some institution has imposed on us, and
which, willy-nilly, we are forced to accept. The connection I see is perhaps
that in both cases a <thing> is being abused; the purposes for which it was
set up are being subverted. In the first case, it's a private citizen, in
the second, an institution doing the abusing.

Do other people see these same distinctions? Is one ``better'' than the
other? Should we thus consider all contracts as being held in ``bad faith''
by both parties and try to protect ourselves? ( Warm fuzzies, though? )
What can we do?

dartvax!karl		karl@dartmouth.csnet

45223wc@ahuta.UUCP (w.cambre) (02/11/85)

REFERENCES:  <2748@dartvax.UUCP>

  I see a distinction.  Cutting through hospital red tape by breaking
some hospital rules can only hurt yourself.  Evading paying your fair share
of taxes hurts everyone.  Either we all have to make up for the people 
who don't pay enough, or the deficit just gets bigger and interest rates
go up, etc. etc. etc.  
  Notice the 'fair share' phrase above.  It is hard to say what a fair share
of taxes is when the tax codes have so many exemptions.  Now if we had
tax reforms to a simple tax code where everyone just paid x%,  I believe
fewer people will cheat and we will all be happier knowing everyone pays
relatively the same percentage.  But that's another discussion.

 - Bill Cambre    ATTISL   53122      ahuta!45223wc    834-3788

dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (02/13/85)

In article <445@ahuta.UUCP> 45223wc@ahuta.UUCP (Bill Cambre) writes:
||					Now if we had
||tax reforms to a simple tax code where everyone just paid x%,  I believe
||fewer people will cheat and we will all be happier knowing everyone pays
||relatively the same percentage.  But that's another discussion.

It sure is. A fixed percentage causes hardship for those with
low incomes. The progressive system of brackets and marginal
rates is perceived as the "fairest", and is used in both the
U.S. and Canada.

That isn't what makes the tax systems complex, though. In both
countries, the tax system is used for an extraordinary number
of policy objectives which have little or nothing to do with
raising revenue (e.g., subsidizing particular industries). On
top of that, there are legitimate reasons for complexity in the
system to avoid double taxation or unfair results in things like
corporate reorganizations, individuals earning income through a
corporation, etc. The marginal rates are the least of your worries.

Dave Sherman
The Law Society of Upper Canada
Toronto
-- 
{utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs}!lsuc!dave
{allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsrgv!lsuc!dave

mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (02/14/85)

In article <399@lsuc.UUCP> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes:

> ... A fixed percentage causes hardship for those with
> low incomes. The progressive system of brackets and marginal
> rates is perceived as the "fairest", and is used in both the
> U.S. and Canada.

Perceived by whom? I can't agree. There is something
democratically satisfying about the idea that both moreAAND less
fortunate people pay the same percentage of their gross income to
the government to support its basic services. 

I think there is even economic justification for a "regressive"
tax, e.g. 20% on the first $15,000, 15% on the next $30,000,
etc., on the grounds that higher-income people simply don't
consume government services at a linearly-proportional rate.
Does a person earning $100,000/yr consume FIVE TIMES as much
tax-supported public services (police/fire/school/defense/
environment/etc.) than a person earning $20,000? No way. Yet he
will pay (without cheating or abusive shelters) more than five
times as much tax.

Now I don't think that a regressive tax is likely to be enacted,
but a flat tax would at least be a step in the correct direction.
Once we get away from the idea that taxes should be used to
redistribute the national income and achieve broad policy
objectives, and return to the original justification for taxes,
which is to provide revenue to run the government on, I'll pay my
share with a smile.

				Michael C. Berch
				{akgua,ihnp4,sun}!idi!lll-tis!mcb
					      ...!idi!styx!mcb
				mcb@lll-tis.ARPA

geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) (02/14/85)

In article <2748@dartvax.UUCP> karl@dartvax.UUCP (Karl Berry.) writes:

>I recently found a strange advertisement in my mailbox, from an outfit
>called Boardroom Books. They wanted to sell me The Book of Inside
>Information, for a substantial [in their eyes] discount. The advertisement
>starts:
>
>WHAT CREDIT CARD COMPANIES DON'T TELL YOU. PAGE 10.
[etc]

Boardroom Books is an offshoot of a newsletter called Boardroom Reports,
which I have subscribed to for years.  Basically, it is a series of
one-paragraph tidbits mixed with a few two-page articles, all on the basic
subject of business (though they divert to anything that might interest the
executive, including medicine and tennis).  ALL of their books, as far as
I can tell, are simply collections of the tidbit parts of their newsletters.

I find their information to be useful in the newsletter, though you have to
take it with a bit of a grain of salt and possibly some moral filtering.  I
have quit buying their books because I don't read them and don't refer to
them.

Most of their "secrets" are not very earthshaking, and are not not
necessarily as immoral as they sound when you find them out.  For instance:
"How to deduct...medical bills paid for non-dependent."  Well, it turns out
that there are IRS rules for handling such things as splitting Mom's medical
bills with your siblings, none of whom pays 50% of Mom's medical bills or
support (the normal IRS test).  The IRS allows you to shuffle your finances
so that one of the siblings gets to deduct all of the bills and split the
take with the rest.  Not very exciting, and not at all immoral -- it's
precisely what the IRS set that particular rule for.

"Legal ways to take tax deduction for full cost of trip mixing business and
pleasure."  The IRS allows you to deduct the full cost of transportation if
more than 50% of the time was spent on business (you can never deduct the
cost of the pleasure days).  The loophole is that travel time is considered
as business time.  So, if you are going to a European conference, you can
take the boat one way (which takes 5 days or so), spend 3 days at a
conference, fly back in 1 day, and still be able to spend up to 8 days
gallivanting around Europe without losing your expensive travel deduction.
This is an example of some of the shadier morality of Boardroom.  It's
perfectly legal within the IRS rules, but it's obviously circumventing their
intent.

I have posted a few sample excerpts from "The Book of Business Knowledge"
(another Boardroom Book) below so you can get a flavor of what these books
are like:

"MAKING A GOOD TELEPHONE IMPRESSION:  Tape some telephone conversations and
note how many "ahs," "ers," and "ya knows" are said.  Try to eliminate
these verbal pauses.  Speak in sentences or complete phrases.  Then be
silent when pausing or thinking.  IN conversations without these
hesitations and sounds, callers will receive a more positive image." (p. 64)

HOW TO BUY CAVIAR [about 30 lines]...BUYING A PIANO [about 15 lines] (p. 234)

"SETTING PRICE OF A HOME:  Don't rely too heavily on a real estate broker's
advice.  A broker makes more on quick sales than big ones.  A fast
commission of $5,000 on a $90,000 sale is much more attractive than $6,000
on a $100,000 sale that takes months to make.  Check out brokers carefully
before giving an exclusive.  Look into prices of recent sales in the
community."  (p. 315)
-- 

	Geoff Kuenning
	Unix Consultant
	...!ihnp4!trwrb!desint!geoff

hammond@petrus.UUCP (02/14/85)

> In article <445@ahuta.UUCP> 45223wc@ahuta.UUCP (Bill Cambre) writes:
> ||					Now if we had
> ||tax reforms to a simple tax code where everyone just paid x%,  I believe
> ||fewer people will cheat and we will all be happier knowing everyone pays
> ||relatively the same percentage.  But that's another discussion.
> 
> It sure is. A fixed percentage causes hardship for those with
> low incomes. The progressive system of brackets and marginal
> rates is perceived as the "fairest", and is used in both the
> U.S. and Canada.
> ...
> Dave Sherman

You're slightly unfair, he did mention in the next paragraph
deducting the first y dollars of income, which makes it a
slightly progressive system, presumeably, if you make the y
large enough (say 5k/exemption) then low income taxpayers
pay nothing.

I'm not sure a progressive system is fairer!
It came about in the US because when it was first started,
it really only hit the upper class.  With inflation a good
deal of the middle class has moved into the progressive region.
Also, in the US social security is a very regressive system,
it only taxes the first $38000 (at 7%) of income.

Rich Hammond

john@genrad.UUCP (John Nelson) (02/15/85)

Frankly, I think the graduated tax system penalizes those who make more
money and thus discourages free enterprise.  It seems to me that it would
be better to tax at a fixed rate, to encourage investment and spending of
income, rather than creating a rather artificial system of tax shelters.

makaren@alberta.UUCP (Darrell Makarenko) (02/15/85)

> Now I don't think that a regressive tax is likely to be enacted,
> but a flat tax would at least be a step in the correct direction.
> Once we get away from the idea that taxes should be used to
> redistribute the national income and achieve broad policy
> objectives, and return to the original justification for taxes,
> which is to provide revenue to run the government on, I'll pay my
> share with a smile.

  Spoken like a true rich man.

dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (02/17/85)

In article <110@styx.UUCP> mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) writes:
||Perceived by whom? I can't agree. There is something
||democratically satisfying about the idea that both more AND less
||fortunate people pay the same percentage of their gross income to
||the government to support its basic services. 

Perhaps I'm writing from a different tradition. Although I'm in
a high bracket, I don't really object to paying proportionately
more in tax than those with lower incomes. Canadian society,
perhaps more than that of the U.S., has a strong social tradition
which, while retaining (mostly) the capitalist system, believes
that all of society is entitled to certain basics. Hence we have
government health plans for all, generous (probably too generous)
welfare and unemployment insurance, and so on. The cost has
to be borne somehow, and those with low incomes need them more
than I do to eat.

Dave Sherman
-- 
{utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs}!lsuc!dave
{allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsrgv!lsuc!dave

phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (02/18/85)

> Once we get away from the idea that taxes should be used to
> redistribute the national income and achieve broad policy
> objectives, and return to the original justification for taxes,
> which is to provide revenue to run the government on, I'll pay my
> share with a smile.
> 
> 				Michael C. Berch

What's wrong with using taxes to achieve policy objectives?
Surely you would agree it is a good thing for the government to
encourage the use of alternative energy sources? In stimulating
a new market, the government can either give direct subsidies
or tax breaks. I don't see much difference. Actually, I prefer
having the tax breaks so I don't have to deal with as many government
agencies.

-- 
 This is my opinion, I guess.

 Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720
 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
 ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA

hrs@homxb.UUCP (H.SILBIGER) (02/18/85)

For all those who complain about the progressiveness of the 
tax system, and the resulting "high" taxes, I recommend the
following excercise.
Add up all the taxes you paid, federal income, state income,state sales,
real estate, etc.
Add up your total income, including wages, dividends, company
savings plan, stock market gains, etc.
Now calculate your overall tax burden!

I went through that excercise, and found although my marginal
federal tax rate is over 40%, my overall tax rate was 21%.
Note that my principal income, with two wage earners, is
from salaries. I have no tax shelters (except for IRA),
don't cut any corners in figuring my taxes, have no tax-free
bonds etc.

The above "overall" tax rate would even be lower if I added
in the cost of the fringe benefits such as health insurance,
pensions, etc. paid for by my employer.

I really don't object to a tax rate like that, to pay for
living in this society. I do object to the excessive
amounts spend on defense that we don't get our money's
worth for, and would like to see it spent on items that
would really strengthen our country, such as the infrastructure
education, and human resources.

Herman Silbiger

2212zap@mhuxm.UUCP (putnins) (02/18/85)

> In article <399@lsuc.UUCP> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes:
> 
> > ... A fixed percentage causes hardship for those with
> > low incomes. The progressive system of brackets and marginal
> > rates is perceived as the "fairest", and is used in both the
> > U.S. and Canada.
> 
> Perceived by whom? I can't agree. There is something
> democratically satisfying about the idea that both moreAAND less
> fortunate people pay the same percentage of their gross income to
> the government to support its basic services. 
> 
> I think there is even economic justification for a "regressive"
> tax, e.g. 20% on the first $15,000, 15% on the next $30,000,
> etc., on the grounds that higher-income people simply don't
> consume government services at a linearly-proportional rate.
> Does a person earning $100,000/yr consume FIVE TIMES as much
> tax-supported public services (police/fire/school/defense/
> environment/etc.) than a person earning $20,000? No way. Yet he
> will pay (without cheating or abusive shelters) more than five
> times as much tax.
> 
Consider the arguement that the person making 5 times as much income has
5 times as much to loose if his house burnt down (no fire department), if he
was robbed (no police), or if the country was overtaken by a foreign power
(no defense).  Besides, taking your arguement to an extreme, we would have to
abolish all public welfare/service programs, since the family getting $10K/year
in public assistance "owes" that much to the governmnet.

dgh@sun.uucp (David Hough) (02/19/85)

In article <687@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes:
>
>What's wrong with using taxes to achieve policy objectives?
>Surely you would agree it is a good thing for the government to
>encourage the use of alternative energy sources? In stimulating
>a new market, the government can either give direct subsidies
>or tax breaks. I don't see much difference. Actually, I prefer
>having the tax breaks so I don't have to deal with as many government
>agencies.
>
> Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720
> UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
> ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA

What's wrong is that the most important feature our tax system might have
has been lost, and it is not now PERCEIVED as JUST or FAIR.  Economists may
legitimately argue about whether it IS just or fair, but it's pretty
generally PERCEIVED otherwise.  A major reason for this perception is that
the tax code is enormously complex, and those who have the means
need not pay income taxes if they choose not to.
Ordinary working people do not have the means and the system is not
voluntary for them.
	Politicians often pretend that the "loopholes" were some sort
of accidental oversight, but one person's loophole is another person's
device to achieve legitimate policy objectives.  There is scarcely a clause
in the IRC that does not have a vociferous constituency 
whenever anyone threatens to reform it.
	To conclude, a very simple flat tax with no deductions, no credits,
and only a simple per capita exemption would be correctly perceived
by everyone.  Graduated rates would be acceptable too (to me at least)
as long as the simplicity were retained.

David Hough	

kalm@ihuxw.UUCP (James ) (02/19/85)

> I'm not sure a progressive system is fairer!
> It came about in the US because when it was first started,
> it really only hit the upper class.  With inflation a good
> deal of the middle class has moved into the progressive region.
> Also, in the US social security is a very regressive system,
> it only taxes the first $38000 (at 7%) of income.
> 
> Rich Hammond

Be careful about pointing out that FICA is regressive.
This is the area of Federal taxes that has no "loopholes"
(read: opportunities for a tax refund).
Unless, of course, you believe that you're going to see
that money again, ha-ha!

One hope is that by the time I'm 65 I'll receive a pay check
in December with no FICA deduction, Maybe I can start an IRA with the
extra amount received.

Let's not give the government the idea that we'd like to see FICA
become progressive.
-- 
Jim Kalmadge -  AT&T Bell Labs IH 4b409
8-367-4325
(312) 979-4325
ihuxw!kalm

kalm@ihuxw.UUCP (James ) (02/19/85)

> I went through that excercise, and found although my marginal
> federal tax rate is over 40%, my overall tax rate was 21%.
> 
> The above "overall" tax rate would even be lower if I added
> in the cost of the fringe benefits such as health insurance,
> pensions, etc. paid for by my employer.
> 
> I really don't object to a tax rate like that, to pay for
> living in this society. I do object to the excessive
> amounts spend on defense that we don't get our money's
> worth for.
> Herman Silbiger

I might as well put in two cents worth:

I agree, only if the money being spent on non-defense concerns
was not MOSTLY (Yes, I said MOSTLY, not entirely,) WASTED.
("Providing jobs" is NOT necessarily 'not wasteful').
The government is impartial in this respect:
It can waste money on anything.

(NO form of government does ANYTHING right)
-- 
Jim Kalmadge -  AT&T Bell Labs IH 4b409
8-367-4325
(312) 979-4325
ihuxw!kalm

phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (02/20/85)

> the tax code is enormously complex, and those who have the means
> need not pay income taxes if they choose not to.
> Ordinary working people do not have the means and the system is not
> voluntary for them.

I file the long form every year and don't believe that people who
don't pay income taxes are getting away with something. I'm sure
they got in that position by taking a real loss of some kind.
It may be no money from their pocket to the IRS but it's money
out of their pocket. Come on, it's easy not to pay income tax.
Just don't have any income. Big deal.

As for what the average citizen thinks, those turkeys think it's
great when they get an income tax refund. I think I did something
wrong when I get a refund because the government has had use of
that money interest free all year. 

> 	To conclude, a very simple flat tax with no deductions, no credits,
> and only a simple per capita exemption would be correctly perceived
> by everyone.  Graduated rates would be acceptable too (to me at least)
> as long as the simplicity were retained.
> 
> David Hough	

You obviously don't own a house. The mortgage interest deduction is
probably even more of a sacred cow than Social Security. (well,
it is to me!) And I claim there are benefits to society in
encouraging home ownership. Real property (land) owners are less
likely to want to mess up the system. Indeed, they are the system.
Surely you've seen what renters can do to their apartments.

I'd be interested in your opinion of all this after you become a
home owner with a wife and 2.3 kids. You might find your opinion changed.

-- 
 This is my opinion, I guess.

 Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720
 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
 ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA

mag@whuxlm.UUCP (Gray Michael A) (02/20/85)

> > I think there is even economic justification for a "regressive"
> > tax, e.g. 20% on the first $15,000, 15% on the next $30,000,
> > etc., on the grounds that higher-income people simply don't
> > consume government services at a linearly-proportional rate.
> > Does a person earning $100,000/yr consume FIVE TIMES as much
> > tax-supported public services (police/fire/school/defense/
> > environment/etc.) than a person earning $20,000? No way. Yet he
> > will pay (without cheating or abusive shelters) more than five
> > times as much tax.
> > 
> Consider the arguement that the person making 5 times as much income has
> 5 times as much to loose if his house burnt down (no fire department), if he
> was robbed (no police), or if the country was overtaken by a foreign power
> (no defense).  Besides, taking your arguement to an extreme, we would have to
>abolish all public welfare/service programs, since the family getting $10K/year
> in public assistance "owes" that much to the governmnet.

That argument is an argument for a wealth tax (such as a property tax),
not for a flat or progressive income tax.  It is perfectly possible
to earn $100,000/year and have nothing to show for it -- i.e. nothing
for the police, fire dept, or military to protect.  It is also possible
to have lots of possessions and pay very low or no taxes, especially
when income is mostly in the form of long-term gains or tax-free
investment dividends.

(Following paragraph somewhat tongue-in-cheek)
As long as we're talking regression, why not just have a head tax?
$4,000 from each of 250,000,000 Americans would cover the current
budget, and make a large payment on the national debt besides.
The marriage penalty would cease to exist, but population growth
would dramatically decline if children cost an extra $4,000/year each!
No one would be able to complain that someone else was pating lower taxes.
Corporations would not be taxed at all, so the cost of doing business
would decline, and so would prices.  Tax accountants would have to
find useful employment.  Those who failed to pay would simply be
drafted into the military or public service jobs until their $4,000
was worked off each year, and wouldn't be allowed to vote.
(End of tongue-in cheek part)

By the way, there's been a lot of criticism of corporate tax rates
in this group.  What good does taxing corporations do?  They pay
their taxes out of income, you know, which comes from the consumers
who buy their products.  Individuals pay all the taxes in the end.
Worse, these taxes are hidden and hard to guess at. Right now,
billions of dollars are spent needlessly in figuring ways to reduce
taxes and making business plans in the face of fluctuating tax
climates.  Hundreds of thousands of private and public sector jobs exist
that have no other purpose than shuffling paper related to paying
and collecting taxes.  These workers produce nothing consumable.
If corporations weren't taxed, most of these people could do something
productive, and the standard of living would rise.


Mike Gray, BTL, WH

dfi@ihuxo.UUCP (Dan Iuster) (02/20/85)

> Frankly, I think the graduated tax system penalizes those who make more
> money and thus discourages free enterprise.  It seems to me that it would
> be better to tax at a fixed rate, to encourage investment and spending of
> income, rather than creating a rather artificial system of tax shelters.

Or how about taxing dividends and investment income at a higher rate
than ordinary income (read real work).  This would be an incentive for
people to work and be creative rather than live of somebody's elses
work.  Otherwise, in the extreme case, you could have everybody investing
and nobody working.
-- 

               ~~~~~~~
	      /       \				Dan F. Iuster
	     /  -   o  \			ihnp4!ihuxo!dfi
	    (   ) | (   )			AT&T Bell Laboratories
	     \   \_/   /			ih 6n-427, x2994
	      \_______/
	   "Have a nice Day"

slack@wxlvax.UUCP (Tom Slack) (02/20/85)

> > Once we get away from the idea that taxes should be used to
> > redistribute the national income and achieve broad policy
> > objectives, and return to the original justification for taxes,
> > which is to provide revenue to run the government on, I'll pay my
> > share with a smile.
> > 
> > 				Michael C. Berch
> 
> What's wrong with using taxes to achieve policy objectives?
> Surely you would agree it is a good thing for the government to
> encourage the use of alternative energy sources? In stimulating
> a new market, the government can either give direct subsidies
> or tax breaks. I don't see much difference. Actually, I prefer
> having the tax breaks so I don't have to deal with as many government
> agencies.
> 
If the government had not discouraged alternative energy sources
for so long it would not have to encourage them.

I also prefer the tax breaks to subsidies.

The point is that we have a constitution which states what things
that the Federal Government should get into and also states that
other things not mentioned are specifically left up to state and
local governments.  Most "policy objectives" are in the categories
of things that should not be decided pro or con at the federal level.
People should be free to decide these things.

Sure I might agree that it is nice to have this or that tax break
to get people to do this or that thing.  But should I have the
power to enact it?  That is wielding power that no group of people should have
(no, not even majorities, and our system is not run by majorities either).

Tom Slack

slack@wxlvax.UUCP (Tom Slack) (02/20/85)

> > I think there is even economic justification for a "regressive"
> > tax, e.g. 20% on the first $15,000, 15% on the next $30,000,
> > etc., on the grounds that higher-income people simply don't
> > consume government services at a linearly-proportional rate.
> > Does a person earning $100,000/yr consume FIVE TIMES as much
> > tax-supported public services (police/fire/school/defense/
> > environment/etc.) than a person earning $20,000? No way. Yet he
> > will pay (without cheating or abusive shelters) more than five
> > times as much tax.
> > 
> Consider the arguement that the person making 5 times as much income has
> 5 times as much to loose if his house burnt down (no fire department), if he
> was robbed (no police), or if the country was overtaken by a foreign power
> (no defense).  Besides, taking your arguement to an extreme, we would have to
> abolish all public welfare/service programs, since the family getting $10K/year
> in public assistance "owes" that much to the governmnet.

A person who recieves a transfer payment from with out creating a good does
in reality owe that money to those that the transfer came from.
It is really taxpayers money, property that they owned that was taken away
and given to the people on welfare.  Economic justification does not mean policy.
We must weigh all factors when deciding what to do with public funds.
But do not loose sight of the basic concept that tax money (for whatever
purpose the goverment uses it for) is our money.
It is not magically created by the FED, it is earned.  There is no free lunch.

I however agree that regressive taxes are particularly bad.
When can we get rid of Social Security.
Tom Slack

mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (02/21/85)

> Consider the arguement that the person making 5 times as much income has
> 5 times as much to loose if his house burnt down (no fire department), if he
> was robbed (no police), or if the country was overtaken by a foreign power
> (no defense).  Besides, taking your arguement to an extreme, we would have to
> abolish all public welfare/service programs, since the family getting 
> $10K/year in public assistance "owes" that much to the governmnet.

No. We are talking about INCOME taxes, not PROPERTY taxes. Local
property taxes that fund property-based services are quite correctly 
ad valorem, though to be completely correct there should be a
per capita portion to fund per capita items like local hospital
services, police protection of public events, and suchlike, and
an ad valorem portion to fund services that increase in cost
along with real or personal property, such as fire protection.

The ad valorem portion should probably also be regressive,
but it is (in California at least) essentially flat, e.g., 
"$X per $100 of assessed valuation". I say "essentially" since
properties are assessed when transferred (and upon certain other
events) since the enactment of Art. XIIIa of the Calif.
Constitution ("Prop. 13"), leading to varying taxes among similar
properties.

--
Michael C. Berch
mcb@lll-tis.ARPA
{akgua,allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,dual,ihnp4,sun}!idi!styx!mcb
                                         ...!idi!lll-tis!mcb

msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) (02/21/85)

> You obviously don't own a house. The mortgage interest deduction is
> probably even more of a sacred cow than Social Security. (well,
> it is to me!) And I claim there are benefits to society in
> encouraging home ownership....

Interesting point, because we've never had that deduction in Canada.
The short-lived Clark government was going to introduce it in 1980,
in a limited way, but failed to, and the topic seems to have been dropped.
I wonder what other countries do.

Canada encourages home ownership with a tax shelter called an RHOSP,
which is vaguely like the American IRA but you have to spend the money
on housing.  It's a bit halfhearted with various sorts of limits, but
ours probably saved me and my wife about Can$3000 to $4000 over six years
or so before we bought, which is enough to notice.

(For retirement we have RRSP's, more like IRA's and less rulebound than
RHOSP's.  The acronyms stand for Registered * Savings Plan.)

Mark Brader

dgh@sun.uucp (David Hough) (02/21/85)

In article <701@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes:
>
>I file the long form every year and don't believe that people who
>don't pay income taxes are getting away with something. I'm sure
>they got in that position by taking a real loss of some kind.
>It may be no money from their pocket to the IRS but it's money
>out of their pocket. Come on, it's easy not to pay income tax.
>Just don't have any income. Big deal.
>

Do you have any rental real estate?  If so you get to "depreciate" it against
other income even when the real estate is increasing in value.  
This means (in case anyone not familiar with this is reading) that
you get to pretend to have a loss, which you use to reduce your taxable
income, without sustaining any real economic loss.

If you sell the rental real estate, you do have to pay tax on the income
you depreciated, but it will likely be at the long term capital gain rate
(20%) instead of the ordinary income rate (50%).

What's the moral justification for this?  I claim there's none.
There is no real loss of any kind.

>> 	To conclude, a very simple flat tax with no deductions, no credits,
>> and only a simple per capita exemption would be correctly perceived
>> by everyone.  Graduated rates would be acceptable too (to me at least)
>> as long as the simplicity were retained.
>> 
>> David Hough	
>
>You obviously don't own a house. The mortgage interest deduction is
>probably even more of a sacred cow than Social Security. (well,
>it is to me!) And I claim there are benefits to society in
>encouraging home ownership. Real property (land) owners are less
>likely to want to mess up the system. Indeed, they are the system.
>Surely you've seen what renters can do to their apartments.
>

When I was a student I was a renter and I though the tax code was a ripoff.
I now own three houses and I STILL think the tax code is a ripoff.
I don't know of any religion with a holy book that proclaims that
landowners are better than tenants.  So the breaks in the tax code for
real estate ownership serve no moral purpose, although silly justifications
are available from any realtor.  The breaks in the tax code for real estate
ownership are simply the Establishment looking out for itself; almost all
Congressmen own real estate and have since the beginning, so they don't
even need to be convinced.

>I'd be interested in your opinion of all this after you become a
>home owner with a wife and 2.3 kids. You might find your opinion changed.

> Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720

If anything, now that I have accumulated a family and some assets, 
I am much more aware
of how the tax code is structured to keep the tax burden on the middle class
while allowing the rich to pay taxes only if they want to.  I don't object
to taxing the middle class; the middle class ALWAYS pays the taxes.  
(Again, for those who are new, the poor don't have much to pay in taxes and the
rich never pay taxes unless they choose to.)
What annoys me is the pious facade of progressive taxation.  So I advocate a
system in which it is clear on whose shoulders lies the burden.

David Hough

mat@hou4b.UUCP (Mark Terribile) (02/24/85)

>Or how about taxing dividends and investment income at a higher rate
>than ordinary income (read real work).  This would be an incentive for
>people to work and be creative rather than live of somebody's elses
>work.  Otherwise, in the extreme case, you could have everybody investing
>and nobody working.

Seems to me we live in a society where it makes more sense to spend money
and go into debt, with interest taken as a deduction, than it does to
put money in the bank, and have your compounding shot to hell by income tax.
Take a look at a set of compound interest tables sometime.  If you are being
taxed at an overall rate of about 30% in the US your marginal tax rate is
much, much higher.  And if you take 11% interest at a marginal tax rate of
40% you get a real interest rate of less than seven percent.  The doubling
time for 11% is about 7.1 years.  For just under 7% it's over ten years.

Given the fact that the US reinvests less of its GNP than most of the other
industrialized nations, it would seem like a better idea to remove the tax on
relatively small amounts of personal savings and remove the deduction for
interest payments on most loans (with a possible exception for mortgage on
a primary residence)

The interest deduction has a rather strange effect.  If I take out a four
year loan on a car, the first year my interest payments (as opposed to
payment of principle) will be relatively large, and, being deductible, will
increase my disposable after tax income more than the interest in the
last year of the loan.

What kind of sense does this make?
-- 

	from Mole End			Mark Terribile
		(scrape .. dig )	hou4b!mat
    ,..      .,,       ,,,   ..,***_*.

dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (02/26/85)

The basis for mortgage interest not being deductible in Canada
has nothing directly to do with houses. Interest in general
is not deductible unless it's interest on money borrowed for
the purpose of producing income which is subject to tax.
So interest on personal loans, charge cards and personal house
mortgages is all ineligible for deduction. (There is no tax on
the gain resulting from the sale of a house which is your principal
residence.) On the other hand, interest paid on a loan which you used
to buy shares or a rental property is deductible. This principle
is called "matching", and doesn't apply in the U.S. as far as
interest is concerned.

Dave Sherman (yes I am a tax lawyer)
Toronto
-- 
{utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs hcr}!lsuc!dave
{allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsri!lsuc!dave

mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (02/26/85)

In article <493@ahutb.UUCP> seb@ahutb.UUCP (s.badian) writes:
>	In Sweden, where taxes are ridiculously high, many people
>would rather get more vacation than get a raise. The time off is worth
>more to them than the little money they get after taxes.

My father in law has a similar viewpoint.  When he works on a holiday,
he has a choice of receiving double pay or an extra day off.  He takes
the extra day off, because "they haven't figured out a way to tax my
extra day off."

wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (02/27/85)

> > "Progressive taxes are bad because they take away incentive to
> > work hard and earn more"

I've noticed this effect in myself. Not so much in work, but in other
income-producing activities, like finding interest-paying checking accounts.

Back when my wife and I both worked, and we had  a larger total income
than now, I recall thinking specifically that I much preferred a 
checking account that provided services at no cost to me than one which
paid me some amount of interest on the balance. Now, the tax impact on
such interest payments is less, but I still prefer to receive services
than to receive monetary return on which I must pay tax.

(Of course, as to this specific example, it is harder now to find either...)

Will

devine@asgb.UUCP (Robert J. Devine) (02/27/85)

>> "Progressive taxes are bad because they take away incentive to
>> work hard and earn more"
> 
> How many people do you know that have decided to reduce their
> work effort because it wasn't worth it due to the tax system?
> 
> No one has ever demonstrated the truth of the quote on the
> first line. Would you turn down a chance to earn $5000 more if
> you could only get to keep $2500?
> 
> If anyone out there can refer me to a legitimate controlled
> study that gives some credence to that quote, please post it.
> 
> Herman Silbiger

   I think it has been demonstrated that people DO reduce their work
effort for work that is heavily taxed.  They then increase the amount
of effort is ways that are less taxed.  Witness tax shelters, money
spent on tax accountants & lawyers.

Bob

neal@denelvx.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer) (04/27/85)

> The above "overall" tax rate would even be lower if I added
> in the cost of the fringe benefits such as health insurance,
> pensions, etc. paid for by my employer.
> 
> Herman Silbiger

	Now add in the taxes that others pay and get passed on to you
in one way or another.  For example:

	Extra taxes your employer has to pay that you might otherwise
see in your salary, "employer's share" of social security, unemployment
tax, etc.

	Taxes that get passed on in the prices you pay, what part of the
price of a loaf of bread goes for the baker's income tax, the supermarket's?

	(Not exactly in the same category but while I'm at it:)  The
government spending your tax money SPECIFICALLY TO RAISE YOUR COST OF LIVING,
farm supports, etc.

	Last time I tried to estimate this, I gave up after I passed my
marginal bracket percentage (about 50%).  I'd like to see how you come out.

			Regards,
				Neal Weidenhofer
"The law is for protection	Denelcor, Inc.
	of the people"		<hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!neal